| 1 |
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 12:02 AM, Tobias Scherbaum |
| 2 |
<dertobi123@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Santiago M. Mola wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> However, tracking the status of every patch since its inclusion in |
| 6 |
>> portage until it's removed would be a huge work overhead... and I |
| 7 |
>> doubt it's worthy. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I don't think it's a huge work overhead, it'll take an additional minute |
| 10 |
> per included patch to include a minimal description into the ebuild(s) |
| 11 |
> and use a standardized header for the patch. Compared to the time one |
| 12 |
> needs to spend when searching for information on that patch somewhen |
| 13 |
> later on it's worth every minute. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Of course, puting a header with info in every patch is not a work |
| 17 |
overhead and I'd say it should be policy. What I meant is that it's no |
| 18 |
worth to track the status of every patch after it's added, as was |
| 19 |
suggested. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Regards, |
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Santiago M. Mola |
| 24 |
Jabber ID: cooldwind@×××××.com |
Archives